The U.S. Left has a superficial and limited understanding of U.S. history, of historical and contemporary global dynamics, of Marxist-Leninist thought, of the Third World revolution of national and social liberation, of the meaning of revolution, and of the characteristics of socialism (see various posts in the category Critique of the Left). Reflecting this superficiality, the U.S. Left has not formulated a narrative that explains national dynamics in global context; nor has it formulated a comprehensive plan of action. At the same time, it tends to express its feelings without political intelligence, without reflection on the impact of its action, slogans, and demands on the people, who in the final analysis must be persuaded to support the program of the Left. As a result of these characteristics, the Left attains limited popular support, and it is unable to lead a popular movement that would seek to take political power in the United States, and to use a position of political power to struggle for democratic changes. Yet such a popular movement in the United States is necessary for the future of humanity.

When members of the U.S. Left travel to Cuba, said limitations are evident. For the most part, they arrive with a superficial understanding of Cuban history and the Cuban political-economic system. For the most part, they express great admiration for Fidel, without having studied his speeches. Diplomacy requires a polite silence by the Cuban side with respect to these shortcomings. However, although diplomacy is appropriate for discussions with representatives of the U.S. government and of U.S. businesses, it should not define the demeanor of the Cuban Revolution with respect to the U.S. Left, which ostensibly presents itself as an advocate of social change and as a defender of social justice.

Historically, the Cuban Revolution has not been so reticent with respect to its relations with Leftist movements in the Third World. Cuba has given concrete support and/or developed strong relations with socialist or leftist governments in Algeria, Ethiopia, Angola, Chile, Grenada, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, and Argentina. Inasmuch as revolutionary Cuba has considered the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of nations to be necessary for justice and sustainability in the world-system, it has not provided concrete aid to socialist movements that had not yet attained power. It nevertheless did have relations with them, as can be seen in the case of Cuban participation in the Forum of Sao Paulo.

The Forum of Sao Paulo was initiated in 1990, when the Workers’ Party of Brazil convoked a Meeting of Parties and Organizations of the Latin American and Caribbean Left in Sao Paulo. The idea for the forum had emerged in a meeting between Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, head of the Brazilian Workers’ Party, and Fidel, during a visit of Lula to Cuba. The initial draft of the First Declaration of Sao Paulo was developed by a commission composed of representatives of the Workers’ Party of Brazil, the Communist Party of Cuba, the Farabundo Martí Front for National Liberation (FMLN) of El Salvador, and the Mariateguista Unified Party of Peru. For the next twenty years, Leftist parties and organization from various Latin American countries participated, with twelve subsequent meetings being held in Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba, El Salvador, Brazil, Guatemala, and Uruguay. The initiative enabled ongoing dialogue among political parties and organizations of the Latin American Left, in order to exchange ideas and discuss possible strategies (Regalado 2008). Cuba played a leading and active role, constantly reiterating its message of the necessary unity of the various sectors of the Left, seeking to take power with strategies that were intelligently adapted to the political, economic, and cultural conditions in each particular nation.

The Forum of Sao Paulo played an important role in establishing the foundation for the arrival to power of Leftist political parties throughout the region during the first decade of the twenty-first century. In the Sao Paulo Forum, the Cuban Revolution was playing an educating role. It was helping the political parties of the Left, some of which were socialist and others that were not, to assess their own national situations and to arrive to an understanding of what ought to be done.

The Left in the United States needs such help and guidance. It is confused and divided, and it has scant understanding of the dynamics of a popular or socialist revolution. Confronting the stunningly low level of historical and political consciousness of the U.S. Left and its subtle ethnocentrism, the Cuban Revolution appears uncertain of itself. It tends to express appreciation for U.S. popular advocacy for an end to the blockade; and also for the earlier support by U.S. activists of the five Cuban anti-terrorist agents unjustly incarcerated in the United States, released and returned to Cuba during the Obama opening. But the Cuban Revolution does not seem to know how to engage the U.S. Left in reflection on the meaning of revolution and of socialism. It does not seem to know how to challenge the U.S. Left to deepen its understanding of revolution and socialism, moving toward greater insight on the basis of socialist revolutionary projects in the world, creatively adapting such insights to the conditions of the United States. The Cuban Revolution does not seem to know how to play an educating role with respect to the U.S. Left, in the way that it has known with respect to the Latin American Left.

The Cuban Revolution needs to give serious consideration concerning how it could draw upon its considerable experience in socialist revolution to educate the U.S. Left concerning the meaning of revolution and of socialism, so that the U.S. Left could benefit from the Cuban socialist experience. To be sure, the U.S. Left must arrive to its own conclusions and strategies that are appropriate for a U.S. context, and it is responsible for forging its own popular revolution (which would be the fourth popular revolution in U.S. history). However, it cannot do so without understanding the basic concepts of revolution and the basic structures and processes of socialist revolutions in Cuba, China, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Venezuela and of anti-imperialist revolutions in Latin America. It needs the benefits of honest, in-depth, mutually respectful, and sustained dialogue with Cuban revolutionaries.